GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE COSTA AND JUDGE ZUPANČIČ 45 JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES COSTA AND ZUPANČIČ JOINED BY JUDGE KOVLER (Translation) 1. It was after much hesitation that we decided to join our colleagues in the Grand Chamber in finding that Poland had not violated Article 11 of the Convention in the instant case by refusing to register the association with the name “Union of People of Silesian Nationality”. 2. Freedom of association is one of the most fundamental political freedoms and, in States that profess democratic values, the courts protect it, usually by according it constitutional status (examples include, in France: the Conseil d'Etat's judgment of 11 July 1956, Amicale des Annamites de Paris, and the decision of the Constitutional Council no. 71-44 of 16 July 1971; and, in the United States: Supreme Court judgments such as In re Primus, 436 United States Reports 412 (1978), and Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 United States Reports 609 (1984). 3. The European Court of Human Rights itself views freedom of association as meriting special protection and considers that the limitations set out in paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Convention must be construed narrowly (see, among other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 22, § 46, and Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1614, § 40; in both cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11). 4. So what is the present case about? It concerns an association that was formed with the name “Union of People of Silesian Nationality” and whose aims as stated in its memorandum of association included: “to awaken and strengthen the national consciousness of Silesians; to restore Silesian culture; to promote knowledge of Silesia; to protect the ethnic rights of persons of Silesian nationality ...”. The memorandum of association afforded the Union very broad-ranging means with which to accomplish its aims, without, however, expressly giving it a right to put forward candidates for election. Lastly, paragraph 10 of the memorandum of association provided: “Any person of Silesian nationality may become an ordinary member of the Union”, and paragraph 30 added: “The Union is an organisation of the Silesian national minority”. It is important to note these points, since, behind its innocuous appearance as an ordinary association, the Union saw itself in practice as the incarnation of the “national” Silesian minority and it is this factor that helps to explain the reaction of the authorities of the respondent State.